Date: 20100924
Docket: T-1552-09
Citation: 2010 FC 954
[REVISED
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, September
24, 2010
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Boivin
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION
Applicant
and
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal
Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F‑7. This application is with respect to a
dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation / Société Radio-Canada (the
CBC) and the Information Commissioner of Canada / Commissaire à l’information
du Canada (the Commissioner). The dispute in question essentially involves the
authority of the Commissioner to order the CBC to produce records under the Access
to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-1 (the Act).
[2]
In
this application for judicial review, the CBC is seeking a declaration that the
Commissioner does not have authority to order access to the CBC records, by
order or otherwise, on the ground that those records fall under the exclusion
set out in section 68.1 of the Act.
Factual Background
[3]
The
CBC has been subject to the Access to Information Act since September
2007, when the legislation was amended. The amendment making the CBC subject to
the Act had been discussed and debated by committees and task forces. At the
end of that process, the amendment was incorporated in the legislation by
section 68.1, which reads as follows:
|
EXCLUSIONS
Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation
68.1 This Act does
not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its journalistic, creative or
programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration.
|
EXCLUSIONS
Société
Radio-Canada
68.1 La présente loi
ne s’applique pas aux renseignements qui relèvent de la Société Radio-Canada
et qui se rapportent à ses activités de journalisme, de création ou de
programmation, à l’exception des renseignements qui ont trait à son
administration.
|
[4]
Subsequently,
between December 2007 and June 2009, the CBC received a number of access to
information requests. Several of those requests were refused on the ground that
they were considered to be excluded from the Act under section 68.1. In
addition, the Court notes that the refusal letter that the CBC sends to a
person requesting access indicates that a complaint regarding the refusal may
be addressed to the Information Commissioner [Applicant’s Record, Tab B: examination
of Pierre Nollet, p 52, paras 150-151].
[5]
The
Information Commissioner received 16 complaints from individuals whose access
requests were refused by the CBC. The Commissioner initiated an investigation
to deal with the complaints. In the course of her investigation, the
Commissioner asked the CBC to disclose a number of records to her.
[6]
The
Commissioner’s request was refused by the CBC on the grounds that the
information contained in the records subject to the 16 access requests under
investigation are excluded from the Act because, under section 68.1, the records
relate to CBC’s journalistic, creative or programming activities.
[7]
In response to the CBC’s refusal, the Commissioner stated that, on
the contrary, section 68.1 of the Act gives her authority to examine the records
in order to determine whether she may exercise the authority provided by the
Act in respect of information relating to the general administration of the CBC.
The Commissioner alleges that, in order to determine her authority, the Act provides
her with the right to examine all CBC records, including records that, in the
opinion of the CBC, contain information relating to its journalistic, creative
or programming activities. Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the view that she
has the authority to order the CBC to disclose those records to her for
examination.
[8]
On
September 15, 2009, the Commissioner ordered the CBC to disclose to her copies
of the records in respect of which the access requests were made. In the
meantime, the CBC brought an application for judicial review seeking a
declaration that the Commissioner does not have authority to order disclosure
of records excluded under section 68.1 of the Act. In response to that
development, the Commissioner agreed to suspend her investigation pending the
final decision of this Court.
Issue
[9]
The
only issue in this application for judicial review is the following : Does the
Information Commissioner of Canada have authority to order the CBC to disclose records,
including records that, in the opinion of the CBC, relate to its journalistic,
creative or programming activities, in order to determine whether those records
fall under the exception, and consequently whether they are excluded under
section 68.1 of the Act?
Standard of Review
[10]
In Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the Supreme Court of Canada held that there are
two standards of review that may be applied to the decisions of administrative
bodies and federal tribunals: correctness and reasonableness. The Supreme Court
of Canada also stated that where there is a question of law or a true
jurisdiction question, as in this case, the standard of review must be
correctness:
[59] … It is
important here to take a robust view of jurisdiction. We neither wish nor
intend to return to the jurisdiction/preliminary question doctrine that plagued
the jurisprudence in this area for many years. “Jurisdiction” is intended in
the narrow sense of whether or not the tribunal had the authority to make the
inquiry. In other words, true jurisdiction questions arise where the
tribunal must explicitly determine whether its statutory grant of power gives
it the authority to decide a particular matter. The tribunal must interpret the
grant of authority correctly or its action will be found to be ultra vires
or to constitute a wrongful decline of jurisdiction: D. J. M. Brown and J. M.
Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (loose‑leaf),
at pp. 14-3 to 14-6.
…
[11]
Because
this case raises a true jurisdiction question, the standard of review that
applies here is correctness.
Analysis
[12]
In
order to interpret section 68.1 of the Act and determine the authority of the
Commissioner, it is useful at this stage to do a brief overview of certain
provisions of the Act.
[13]
The
general principle by which we must be guided in interpreting the Act is set out
in section 2. This section plainly states that the purpose of the Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control
of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government
information should be available to the public, subject to limited and specific
exceptions and exclusions.
[14]
The spirit of
the Act is based on the principle of disclosure. Under the Act, non‑disclosure
of information under the control of government institutions is the exception
(see Canada Post Corp. v Canada (Minister
of Public Works) (C.A.), [1995] 2 FC 110, [1995] FCJ No 241, at para 34). Where access is
refused, the Act establishes a process for review by the Information
Commissioner of Canada. In performing her functions, the Commissioner is
independent and impartial. She acts as a de facto ombudsofficer. In Rowat
v Canada (Information Commissioner), [2000] FCJ No 832, 193 FTR 1, at para 28, the Court stated
that the Commissioner’s function is independent:
[28] With respect to the independence of the Commissioner, no issue is
taken with the following observations made in the argument advanced by the
Commissioner:
The Commissioner is a neutral and independent ombudsofficer charged
with supervising the administration of the Access to Information Act and
government action in relation thereto and is limited to making recommendations
to government institutions or to Parliament regarding the disclosure of
government information and the administration of the Access to Information
Act. [Access
to Information Act, s.2(1), 30, 37, 38, 39, 55 and
5] …
[15]
In
addition, under section 4 of the Act, government institutions must respond to
all access requests, unless they can show that the information falls under an
exception set out in the Act (see Rubin v Canada (Minister of Transport)
(C.A.), [1998] 2 FC 430, [1997] FCJ No 1614, at para 19).
[16]
It should also be noted that in Canada (Privacy
Commissioner) v Canada (Labour Relations Board), [1996] 3 FC
609, [1996] FCJ No 1076, at para 47,
the Court recognized that the Access to Information Act has
quasi-constitutional status:
[47] The broad, purposive approach afforded by this Court to the
interpretation of both the Access Act and Privacy Act originates in part
from this legislation's particular status. Subsection 4(1) of the Access Act
provides that the Act applies "notwithstanding any other act of
Parliament," lending it a quasi-constitutional status.
…
[17]
With
respect to the operation of the Act, it provides a two-stage review mechanism
by which refusal of an access request by a government institution may be
reviewed to ensure that the person requesting access is protected.
[18]
It is
the role of the Commissioner, who is appointed by Parliament and independent of
the government, to conduct the first stage of the review. The Act also provides
that once the Commissioner has completed her investigation and her report has
been released, the second stage of the review is to be conducted by the Federal
Court (sections 40 and 41).
[19]
A complainant whose
access request has been refused is entitled to an objective and independent
investigation and be informed of the Commissioner’s findings regarding the
results of the investigation. As the Federal Court of Appeal observed in Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence), [1999] FCJ No 522, 240 NR 244, at para 27:
[27] The investigation the Commissioner must conduct is the cornerstone
of the access to information system. It represents an informal method of
resolving disputes in which the Commissioner is vested not with the power to
make decisions, but instead with the power to make recommendations to the
institution involved. The importance of this investigation is reinforced by the
fact that it constitutes a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of
review, as provided in sections 41 and 42 of the Act.
[20]
In this case, the CBC argues
the principles of the statutory interpretation, which holds that the words of
an Act are to be read harmoniously with the scheme of the Act (see Montréal (City) v 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, [2005] 3 SCR
141, at para 9). The CBC also
argues that a contextual analysis of subsection 36(2) and section 68.1 of the
Act leads to the conclusion that the Commissioner may not order the CBC to
disclose information to her. Subsections 36(1) and 36(2) read as follows:
|
Powers of Information Commissioner in
carrying out investigations
36. (1) The
Information Commissioner has, in relation to the carrying out of the
investigation of any complaint under this Act, power
(a)
to summon and enforce the appearance of persons before the Information
Commissioner and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to
produce such documents and things as the Commissioner deems requisite to the
full investigation and consideration of the complaint, in the same manner and
to the same extent as a superior court of record;
(b)
to administer oaths;
(c)
to receive and accept such evidence and other information, whether on oath or
by affidavit or otherwise, as the Information Commissioner sees fit, whether
or not the evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of
law;
(d)
to enter any premises occupied by any government institution on satisfying
any security requirements of the institution relating to the premises;
(e)
to converse in private with any person in any premises entered pursuant to
paragraph (d) and otherwise carry out therein such inquiries within
the authority of the Information Commissioner under this Act as the
Commissioner sees fit; and
(f)
to examine or obtain copies of or extracts from books or other records found
in any premises entered pursuant to paragraph (d) containing any
matter relevant to the investigation.
Access
to records
(2) Notwithstanding any other Act of
Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, the Information
Commissioner may, during the investigation of any complaint under this Act,
examine any record to which this Act applies that is under the control of a
government institution, and no such record may be withheld from the
Commissioner on any grounds.
…
|
Pouvoirs
du Commissaire à l’information pour la tenue des enquêtes
36. (1) Le Commissaire à
l’information a, pour l’instruction des plaintes déposées en vertu de la
présente loi, le pouvoir :
a) d’assigner et de contraindre des
témoins à comparaître devant lui, à déposer verbalement ou par écrit sous la
foi du serment et à produire les pièces qu’il juge indispensables pour
instruire et examiner à fond les plaintes dont il est saisi, de la même façon
et dans la même mesure qu’une cour supérieure d’archives;
b) de faire prêter serment;
c) de recevoir des éléments de preuve ou
des renseignements par déclaration verbale ou écrite sous serment ou par tout
autre moyen qu’il estime indiqué, indépendamment de leur admissibilité devant
les tribunaux;
d) de pénétrer dans les locaux occupés
par une institution fédérale, à condition de satisfaire aux normes de
sécurité établies par l’institution pour ces locaux;
e) de s’entretenir en privé avec toute
personne se trouvant dans les locaux visés à l’alinéa d) et d’y mener,
dans le cadre de la compétence que lui confère la présente loi, les enquêtes
qu’il estime nécessaires;
f) d’examiner ou de se faire remettre
des copies ou des extraits des livres ou autres documents contenant des
éléments utiles à l’enquête et trouvés dans les locaux visés à l’alinéa d).
Accès
aux documents
(2)
Nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale et toute immunité reconnue par le droit
de la preuve, le Commissaire à l’information a, pour les enquêtes qu’il mène
en vertu de la présente loi, accès à tous les documents qui relèvent d’une
institution fédérale et auxquels la présente loi s’applique; aucun de ces
documents ne peut, pour quelque motif que ce soit, lui être refusé.
[…]
|
[21]
While subsection 36(1) assigns
certain powers to the Commissioner, including the power to examine records or
to have records disclosed to her, subsection 36(2) gives the Commissioner
access to any record that is under the control of a government institution.
Counsel for the CBC pointed out, however, that subsection 36(2) includes an
important caveat, in that the Commissioner has access to any record “to which
this Act applies”. Because section 68.1 defines the records to which the Act
does not apply, the CBC contends that the Commissioner does not have authority
to compel the CBC to disclose records to her to which the Act does not apply.
[22]
The CBC
also relies broadly on the historical context, which it describes as crucial, to
the extent that it clarifies the intention of Parliament. For example, the CBC refers
to the interdepartmental task force created by the Government of Canada in 2000
to review all aspects of the access scheme and recommend improvements. At that
time, the CBC argued the possible consequences of making all of its
journalistic activities subject to the Act, and in particular its independence
from the government. In 2002, in a report tabled in Parliament, the then
Commissioner advocated a scheme containing exceptions rather than exclusions,
and in 2005 the Commissioner proposed a series of amendments to that effect. Parliament
did not incorporate that proposal in Bill C-2, An Act Providing for Conflict
of Interest Rules, Restrictions on Election Financing and Measures Respecting Administrative
Transparency, Ovversight and Accountability. In May and June 2006, the
Commissioner opposed the creation of an exclusion scheme for the CBC, fearing
that it would prevent independent review by the Commission and the Federal
Court. The Act was amended and Parliament included the exclusion in section 68.1
[Applicant’s Record, Applicant’s Memorandum, at pp 10-18].
[23]
Relying on an
historical analysis of the enactment of section 68.1 and the objective and the grammatical
meaning of the Act, and in particular of subsection 36(2), the CBC submits that
the Commissioner does not have authority to order it to disclose records that the
CBC believes to be excluded from the Act by section 68.1.
[24]
Counsel for the
Commissioner argued that the purpose of the Act must be given a broad and
liberal interpretation and that the Commissioner must have authority to
determine whether the records fall under the exception. To do otherwise would run
counter to the objective of the Act and would enable the CBC to circumvent the
review mechanisms provided in the Act, even though it has been subject to the
Act since 2007.
[25]
First, this
Court is of the opinion that although parliamentary debates and discussions in
committees may assist in interpreting a statute, in that they provide the
context that was before Parliament, it is also recognized that they are not
conclusive in themselves and the weight assigned to them will be limited (see Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, [1998] SCJ No 2, at para 35; A.Y.S.A.
Amateur Youth Soccer Association v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2007 SCC
42, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 217 at para 12; Pierre-André Côté, Interprétation des lois,
4th ed., Montréal, Thémis, 2009, at pp 505-506). Following a review of the
discussions that took place in committees, in the circumstances, while the
historical context is relevant, it is not conclusive in itself. Second,
although the wording of section 68.1 is not, shall we say, a model of clarity,
the interpretation proposed by the CBC runs contrary to the purpose of the Act,
which calls for it to be interpreted liberally (section 2). This Court
therefore cannot agree with the interpretation of section 68.1 advanced by the CBC,
for the reasons that follow.
[26]
Section 68.1 provides
that “[t]his Act does not apply to any information that
is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that relates to
its journalistic, creative or programming activities”. As noted earlier, the CBC relies on the words “[t]his Act does
not apply” in arguing that the Commissioner cannot rely on section 36 to order the
CBC to disclose records to her. However, it is important to note that section 68.1
also states “other than information that relates to its
general administration”. Information that relates to the general administration
of a government institution includes “information that relates to expenses paid
by the institution for travel, including lodging and hospitality” (section 3.1 of the Act).
[27]
Section 68.1, as
worded, contains a double negative, that is, an exception to the exclusion.
That exception to the exclusion, which refers to information that relates to
the general administration of the CBC, may shed light with respect to the
authority of the Commissioner. How can the Commissioner determine whether
information relates to the general administration of the CBC, and thus falls
under the exception set out in section 68.1, if she does not have authority to
review all the records in question, including records relating to the journalistic,
creative or programming activities of the CBC?
[28]
The Court notes the CBC’s
argument that when Parliament created parallel schemes for exceptions (sections
13 to 26 of the Act) and exclusions (sections 68 to 69.1 of the Act), it surely
did not intend that the two schemes be subject to the same rules.
[29]
However, the Court must
observe that the wording of sections 68.1 and 68.2, which were both part of the
amendment to the Act, contains an exception to the exclusion. Accordingly, the
Court is of the opinion that while section 68.1 is included under the
“exclusions” heading in the Act, the wording of that section cannot exempt it
from independent review by the Commissioner. When we read section 68.1, we see
that the Commissioner must have authority to determine, objectively and
independently, whether the records fall under the exception and whether or not
they may be properly excluded (see Canada (Attorney
General) v Canada (Information Commissioner), 2001 FCA 25, [2001] FCJ No 282,
at para 21). The consequence, otherwise, would be to exempt the CBC from the Act, and this would be contrary not only
to the object of the Act (section 2) but also to its spirit, since the CBC has
been subject to the Act since 2007.
[30]
The CBC contends that
it is in the best position to conduct this exercise, since it has expertise in
this area. Also, since the Act states clearly that it “does not apply”, the
Commissioner has no authority and no power to investigate in this case. In
other words, by this reasoning, the CBC has full authority to determine whether
records in respect of which an access request is made fall under the exception
set out in section 68.1. The Court does not share that interpretation.
[31]
The position taken by the
CBC confers the Crown corporation judge in its own case in respect of access
requests it receives. On that point, the evidence in the record is that the CBC
has not produced any written directives that would ensure uniformity in the
process of handling access requests [Applicant’s Record, Tab B, examination of
Pierre Nollet, p 22, para 54].
[32]
In particular, that
approach constructs a parallel scheme alongside the Act. The Court refers to Davidson
v Canada (Solicitor General), [1989] 2 FC 341, [1989] FCJ No 105, at
para 14, and is of the opinion that not only such an interpretation denies the
Commissioner authority, but that it also denies one level of review in respect
of a complaint to the person who has requested access:
[14] It is no doubt
true, as the appellant argued, that a Federal Court trial judge, on a review of a refusal of access
by an institution head which, as here, is upheld by the Commissioner, has
adequate powers of review over the decision of the institution head, though it
must be said that a judge sitting in Court lacks the investigative staff and
flexibility of the Commissioner. More important, if new grounds of exemption
were allowed to be introduced before the judge after the completion of the
Commissioner's investigation into wholly other grounds, as is the issue in the
case at bar, the complainant would be denied entirely the benefit of the
Commissioner's procedures. He would thus be cut down from two levels of
protection to one. No case could better illustrate than the present one the
advantages of a two-stage process, because it was only at the second stage that
the fatal flaw in the initial ground was discovered.
[33]
Further, there is
nothing in the Act or, a fortiori, in the debates held in committees
from which it can be concluded that in enacting the amendment to the Act,
Parliament intended to judicialize the access to information request process by
denying the Commissioner authority and creating a two-stream process that would
consequently create a direct application to the Federal Court for judicial
review.
[34]
In addition, the CBC draws
a parallel in Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Tribe Department of Health,
2008 SCC 44, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574, in which the Supreme
Court of Canada held that the Privacy Commissioner could not obtain access to
information covered by solicitor-client privilege, even if the purpose of
access was to ensure that the claim of privilege was justified. At the hearing
before this Court, counsel for the CBC asserted an analogy between
solicitor-client privilege and journalistic sources. In the case before us, the
Court does not accept the argument made by the CBC, since Blood Tribe did
not involve an exclusion. In addition, the principles stated in Blood Tribe
relate to cases of information protected by the Personal Information
Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5,
the corollary of which is the opposite of the Access to Information Act.
[35]
With respect to the role
of the Information Commissioner, sections 36 and 37 of the Act list the
Commissioner’s powers. If we read those sections, it is clear that she has neither
decision-making nor coercive power. As the Commissioner pointed out, the result
of her investigation gives her the power only to make recommendations to
government institutions, and the decision as to whether or not to implement
those recommendations is up to the institutions. It is also clear from subsection
35(1) of the Act that the Commissioner’s investigations are private and
confidential. It is also important to note that there is therefore no
disclosure at that stage (see Rubin, para 9). As well, under subsection 36(5)
of the Act, government institutions that produce documents may require that the
Commissioner return them within 10 days. In other words, the Act was drafted with
clearly defined parameters.
[36]
The Court finds it
difficult to see what harm might be caused to the CBC in the performance of its
mission if the Commissioner obtained copies of records in order to ascertain
whether they relate to the general administration of the CBC under section 68.1
(see Respondent’s Record, Tab B: examination of Pierre Nollet, at pp 94-95). We
must keep in mind that the Commissioner is a neutral entity, investigations are
private and confidential, and the review must be objective. Disclosing records
to the Commissioner does not amount to revealing them. A distinction must be
made between sharing information and records with the Commissioner, in response
to a complaint in respect of a refusal of access, and revealing that
information publicly, in the event that the access request is granted. If there
is disagreement between the CBC and the Commissioner once she has reached her
conclusions, the CBC may take its disagreement before the Federal Court.
[37]
In light of the
foregoing, and having regard to the scheme of the Act and the provisions of the
Act when read as a whole, the Court finds that the Commissioner has authority
under section 68.1 to order the CBC to disclose records, including records
that, in the opinion of the CBC, relate to its journalistic, creative or
programming activities, in order to determine whether those records fall under
the exception and consequently whether they are subject to the exclusion.
[38]
For all these reasons,
the Court dismisses this application for judicial review.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for
judicial review be dismissed.
“Richard
Boivin”
ANNEX
|
Access to Information Act, R.S. 1985, c. A-1
PURPOSE OF ACT
Purpose
2. (1) The purpose of this Act
is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to
information in records under the control of a government institution in
accordance with the principles that government information should be
available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access
should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of
government information should be reviewed independently of government.
Complementary
procedures
(2)
This Act is intended to complement and not replace existing procedures for
access to government information and is not intended to limit in any way
access to the type of government information that is normally available to
the general public.
For
greater certainty
3.1 For greater certainty, for the
purposes of this Act, information that relates to the general administration
of a government institution includes information that relates to expenses
paid by the institution for travel, including lodging, and hospitality.
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT RECORDS
Right
to access to records
4. (1) Subject to this Act,
but notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, every person who is
(a) a Canadian citizen, or
(b) a permanent resident within
the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act,
has
a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the
control of a government institution.
…
Responsibility
of government institutions
(2.1)
The head of a government institution shall, without regard to the identity of
a person making a request for access to a record under the control of the
institution, make every reasonable effort to assist the person in connection
with the request, respond to the request accurately and completely and,
subject to the regulations, provide timely access to the record in the format
requested.
…
COMPLAINTS
Receipt
and investigation of complaints
30. (1) Subject to this Act,
the Information Commissioner shall receive and investigate complaints
(a) from persons who have been
refused access to a record requested under this Act or a part thereof;
(b) from persons who have been
required to pay an amount under section 11 that they consider unreasonable;
(c) from persons who have
requested access to records in respect of which time limits have been
extended pursuant to section 9 where they consider the extension unreasonable;
(d) from persons who have not
been given access to a record or a part thereof in the official language
requested by the person under subsection 12(2), or have not been given access
in that language within a period of time that they consider appropriate;
(d.1) from persons who have not
been given access to a record or a part thereof in an alternative format
pursuant to a request made under subsection 12(3), or have not been given
such access within a period of time that they consider appropriate;
(e) in respect of any
publication or bulletin referred to in section 5; or
(f) in respect of any other
matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.
…
Powers of Information Commissioner in
carrying out investigations
36. (1) The
Information Commissioner has, in relation to the carrying out of the
investigation of any complaint under this Act, power
(a)
to summon and enforce the appearance of persons before the Information
Commissioner and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to
produce such documents and things as the Commissioner deems requisite to the
full investigation and consideration of the complaint, in the same manner and
to the same extent as a superior court of record;
(b)
to administer oaths;
(c)
to receive and accept such evidence and other information, whether on oath or
by affidavit or otherwise, as the Information Commissioner sees fit, whether
or not the evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of
law;
(d)
to enter any premises occupied by any government institution on satisfying
any security requirements of the institution relating to the premises;
(e)
to converse in private with any person in any premises entered pursuant to
paragraph (d) and otherwise carry out therein such inquiries within
the authority of the Information Commissioner under this Act as the
Commissioner sees fit; and
(f)
to examine or obtain copies of or extracts from books or other records found
in any premises entered pursuant to paragraph (d) containing any
matter relevant to the investigation.
Access
to records
(2) Notwithstanding any other Act of
Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, the Information
Commissioner may, during the investigation of any complaint under this Act,
examine any record to which this Act applies that is under the control of a
government institution, and no such record may be withheld from the
Commissioner on any grounds.
…
REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURT
Review
by Federal Court
41. Any person who has been
refused access to a record requested under this Act or a part thereof may, if
a complaint has been made to the Information Commissioner in respect of the
refusal, apply to the Court for a review of the matter within forty-five days
after the time the results of an investigation of the complaint by the
Information Commissioner are reported to the complainant under subsection
37(2) or within such further time as the Court may, either before or after
the expiration of those forty-five days, fix or allow.
Information
Commissioner may apply or appear
42. (1) The Information
Commissioner may
(a) apply to the Court, within
the time limits prescribed by section 41, for a review of any refusal to
disclose a record requested under this Act or a part thereof in respect of
which an investigation has been carried out by the Information Commissioner,
if the Commissioner has the consent of the person who requested access to the
record;
(b) appear before the Court on
behalf of any person who has applied for a review under section 41; or
(c) with leave of the Court,
appear as a party to any review applied for under section 41 or 44.
Applicant
may appear as party
(2)
Where the Information Commissioner makes an application under paragraph (1)(a)
for a review of a refusal to disclose a record requested under this Act or a
part thereof, the person who requested access to the record may appear as a
party to the review.
Notice
to third parties
43. (1) The head of a
government institution who has refused to give access to a record requested
under this Act or a part thereof shall forthwith on being given notice of any
application made under section 41 or 42 give written notice of the
application to any third party that the head of the institution has notified
under subsection 27(1) in respect of the request or would have notified under
that subsection if the head of the institution had intended to disclose the
record or part thereof.
Third
party may appear as party
(2)
Any third party that has been given notice of an application for a review
under subsection (1) may appear as a party to the review.
EXCLUSIONS
Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation
68.1 This Act does
not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its journalistic, creative or
programming activities, other than information that relates to its general
administration.
|
Loi sur l’accès à
l’information,
LRC, 1985, c. A-1
OBJET DE LA LOI
Objet
2. (1) La présente loi a pour
objet d’élargir l’accès aux documents de l’administration fédérale en
consacrant le principe du droit du public à leur communication, les
exceptions indispensables à ce droit étant précises et limitées et les
décisions quant à la communication étant susceptible de recours indépendants
du pouvoir exécutif.
Étoffement
des modalités d’accès
(2)
La présente loi vise à compléter les modalités d’accès aux documents de
l’administration fédérale; elle ne vise pas à restreindre l’accès aux
renseignements que les institutions fédérales mettent normalement à la
disposition du grand public.
Précision
3.1 Il est entendu que, pour l’application
de la présente loi, les renseignements se rapportant à l’administration de
l’institution fédérale comprennent ceux qui ont trait à ses dépenses en
matière de déplacements, d’hébergement et d’accueil.
ACCÈS AUX DOCUMENTS DE
L’ADMINISTRATION FÉDÉRALE
Droit
d’accès
4. (1) Sous réserve des autres
dispositions de la présente loi mais nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale, ont
droit à l’accès aux documents relevant d’une institution fédérale et peuvent
se les faire communiquer sur demande :
a) les citoyens canadiens;
b) les résidents permanents au sens du
paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.
[…]
Responsable de l’institution fédérale
(2.1)
Le responsable de l’institution fédérale fait tous les efforts raisonnables,
sans égard à l’identité de la personne qui fait ou s’apprête à faire une
demande, pour lui prêter toute l’assistance indiquée, donner suite à sa
demande de façon précise et complète et, sous réserve des règlements, lui
communiquer le document en temps utile sur le support demandé.
[…]
PLAINTES
Réception
des plaintes et enquêtes
30. (1) Sous réserve des autres
dispositions de la présente loi, le Commissaire à l’information reçoit les
plaintes et fait enquête sur les plaintes :
a) déposées par des personnes qui se
sont vu refuser la communication totale ou partielle d’un document qu’elles
ont demandé en vertu de la présente loi;
b) déposées par des personnes qui
considèrent comme excessif le montant réclamé en vertu de section 11;
c) déposées par des personnes qui ont
demandé des documents dont les délais de communication ont été prorogés en
vertu de section 9 et qui considèrent la prorogation comme abusive;
d) déposées par des personnes qui se
sont vu refuser la traduction visée au paragraphe 12(2) ou qui considèrent
comme contre-indiqué le délai de communication relatif à la traduction;
d.1) déposées par des personnes qui se
sont vu refuser la communication des documents ou des parties en cause sur un
support de substitution au titre du paragraphe 12(3) ou qui considèrent comme
contre-indiqué le délai de communication relatif au transfert;
e) portant sur le répertoire ou le
bulletin visés à section 5;
f) portant sur toute autre question
relative à la demande ou à l’obtention de documents en vertu de la présente
loi.
[…]
Pouvoirs
du Commissaire à l’information pour la tenue des enquêtes
36. (1) Le Commissaire à
l’information a, pour l’instruction des plaintes déposées en vertu de la
présente loi, le pouvoir :
a) d’assigner et de contraindre des
témoins à comparaître devant lui, à déposer verbalement ou par écrit sous la
foi du serment et à produire les pièces qu’il juge indispensables pour
instruire et examiner à fond les plaintes dont il est saisi, de la même façon
et dans la même mesure qu’une cour supérieure d’archives;
b) de faire prêter serment;
c) de recevoir des éléments de preuve ou
des renseignements par déclaration verbale ou écrite sous serment ou par tout
autre moyen qu’il estime indiqué, indépendamment de leur admissibilité devant
les tribunaux;
d) de pénétrer dans les locaux occupés
par une institution fédérale, à condition de satisfaire aux normes de
sécurité établies par l’institution pour ces locaux;
e) de s’entretenir en privé avec toute
personne se trouvant dans les locaux visés à l’alinéa d) et d’y mener,
dans le cadre de la compétence que lui confère la présente loi, les enquêtes
qu’il estime nécessaires;
f) d’examiner ou de se faire remettre
des copies ou des extraits des livres ou autres documents contenant des
éléments utiles à l’enquête et trouvés dans les locaux visés à l’alinéa d).
Accès aux documents
(2)
Nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale et toute immunité reconnue par le droit
de la preuve, le Commissaire à l’information a, pour les enquêtes qu’il mène
en vertu de la présente loi, accès à tous les documents qui relèvent d’une
institution fédérale et auxquels la présente loi s’applique; aucun de ces
documents ne peut, pour quelque motif que ce soit, lui être refusé.
[…]
RÉVISION PAR LA COUR FÉDÉRALE
Révision
par la Cour fédérale
41. La personne qui s’est vu
refuser communication totale ou partielle d’un document demandé en vertu de
la présente loi et qui a déposé ou fait déposer une plainte à ce sujet devant
le Commissaire à l’information peut, dans un délai de quarante-cinq jours
suivant le compte rendu du Commissaire prévu au paragraphe 37(2), exercer un
recours en révision de la décision de refus devant la Cour. La Cour peut,
avant ou après l’expiration du délai, le proroger ou en autoriser la
prorogation.
Exercice
du recours par le Commissaire, etc.
42. (1) Le Commissaire à
l’information a qualité pour :
a) exercer lui-même, à l’issue de son
enquête et dans les délais prévus à section 41, le recours en révision
pour refus de communication totale ou partielle d’un document, avec le
consentement de la personne qui avait demandé le document;
b) comparaître devant la Cour au nom de
la personne qui a exercé un recours devant la Cour en vertu de section 41;
c) comparaître, avec l’autorisation de
la Cour, comme partie à une instance engagée en vertu des articles 41 ou 44.
Comparution
de la personne qui a fait la demande
(2)
Dans le cas prévu à l’alinéa (1)a), la personne qui a demandé
communication du document en cause peut comparaître comme partie à
l’instance.
Avis
au tiers
43. (1) Sur réception d’un avis
de recours en révision exercé en vertu des articles 41 ou 42, le responsable
d’une institution fédérale qui avait refusé communication totale ou partielle
du document en litige donne à son tour avis du recours au tiers à qui il
avait donné l’avis prévu au paragraphe 27(1) ou à qui il l’aurait donné s’il
avait eu l’intention de donner communication totale ou partielle du document.
Comparution
du tiers
(2)
Le tiers qui est avisé conformément au paragraphe (1) peut comparaître comme
partie à l’instance.
EXCLUSIONS
Société
Radio-Canada
68.1 La présente loi
ne s’applique pas aux renseignements qui relèvent de la Société Radio-Canada
et qui se rapportent à ses activités de journalisme, de création ou de
programmation, à l’exception des renseignements qui ont trait à son
administration.
|
Email this Content